Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Amire80 in topic Global templates reboot

Use meta?[edit]

Why not just use meta without the prefixes? It's already used for a lot of central coordination (banners, blocks, etc), we might as well use it for the central preferences, scripts, lua modules and fallback user pages. Multichill (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a possibility, but I'm not sure if all pages here would be suitable to be displayed on other projects. --Ricordisamoa 14:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think we should use Meta. Or Commons, or WIkidata. But why a whole new project? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Meta is for discussing the WMF projects. Glabal-Wiki would not fit there. I can see it working using wikidata information but presented in a prettier format with the edit button moving you to Wikidata. This would probably benefit from a different url, separate from Wikidata, but as it would import info from wikidata on-the-fly it might be worth hosting it on the wikidata servers. Filceolaire (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you're right about that. And Commons is for media, so that wouldn't work. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
IMHO all the functions that are thought about are certainly useful and desired; but one doesn't need to insist on a separate wiki. It depends on what the developers who implement these functions will do anyway, but e.g. for global preferences, probably it's the best if they can be managed from Meta (or even from a special page that would work everywhere for the same SUL account), for global scripts, also Meta seems to be a good place. For global user pages, it might simply be the best to display an automatic "soft redirect" link to the Meta user page on wikis where an account exists that has a Meta user page but no user page on the wiki. --MF-W 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would certainly put this information to Meta. I do not see why a separate WMF project is needed at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Use MediaWiki, it's already in use for extensions. -- Rob Kam (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Related requests for comments[edit]

Requests for comment/Global bits and pieces and mw:Requests for comment/Global scripts --MZMcBride (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a lot more complicated than just figuring out a name[edit]

There is a lot of code that would have to be written and tested to make this happen, as well as various decisions as to how exactly it should work from a technical standpoint. Writing this code is on our roadmap, but there is no timeline for it. So figuring out a name for the wiki is something that would have to be done eventually, but it's far from being a blocking issue. BJorsch (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Templates and bits and pieces for non-WMF MediaWiki installs[edit]

See also Templates and bits and pieces for non-WMF MediaWiki installs. Although especially a suggestion for non-WMF wikis it still refers to MediaWiki software. -- Rob Kam (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

RFC meeting in a few hours[edit]

There will be a meeting today on #wikimedia-office to discuss mw:Requests for comment/Global scripts.

Maybe people watching this page will also be interested in participate? See [Wikitech-l] RFC meeting this week for details. Helder 12:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Helder - how did the meeting go? Anything interesting for those of us who aren't mail-subscribers? Green Giant (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The process?[edit]

Maybe I am wrong (which is often the case) but could a lot of this proposal (e.g. the userpages and templates) be implemented in the same way that all the Wikipedias and Wikisources enable files from Commons to be treated as if they were local files, even to the point of adding local descriptions? Green Giant (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Global templates reboot[edit]


So, this proposal was closed in 2017 as "consensus", but it's far from being fully done.

We do have global personal JS and CSS, global user pages, and global preferences, and all of this is excellent. However, we still don't have Global templates, and this is the most important thing.

I am trying to reboot the Global templates project. It's ambitious, but I am trying to make it focused on only templates and modules, and to break it up further into manageable and doable parts.

I wrote a similar proposal: mw:Global templates is the introduction, there are more details in mw:Global templates/Proposed specification, short version, and even more details in mw:Global templates/Draft spec.

I'd love to hear what do you think about it. If you support it, please sign at mw:Global templates/Discuss.

Thank you! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply